On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 13:54:09 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 18:19:09 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 02:05:52 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 06:04:34 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

Sure they did - the R32. May not have been available in the US, but
that's the car for which that engine was created, along with the TT.

You mean the TT, which in 2004 had 250HP while in 2004, the Golf R32
only had 241? Is this another marketing dodge, only this time internal
to VAG? Are they lying to you just like Porsche is?

Personally, and given that production engines typically vary in actual
output by 5% or so, i.e. by about 12 HP for the 3.2 VR6, I've never
been convinced by the claimed 250 HP from the TT installation against
247 in the A3, and varying outputs claimed for the R32 at different
times, all the way from 237 to 247, but who really knows?

Dodging the issue I see. Who cares WHAT you've been convinced of? All
you need to do is offer some CONCRETE PROOF to support yourself. You
haven't offered ANYTHING but supposition. These are certified results
(at least here in the states, there are legal requirements for posting
stats like this).

Sure they're certified stats, but production engines still vary by the
amount I stated, which exceeds the reported variations in power claims
for that same engine in various installations, so it's perfectly
possible for you to buy a Cayenne with *less* power than a Touareg.
BTW, the stats invariably assume a quite unrealistic 0% atmospheric
humidity - unless you live in Tucson, of course! :-)

Mind you, given that you can get another 12-15 HP just by remapping
the engine management system, i.e. 'chipping', you can pretty much
dial in anything from 240 to 260 at will, so it's all very moot.

Who cares? That's not part of the issue. But you're right, THIS point
of yours is MOOT. I could easily compare a chipped Cayenne to an
unchipped Touareg to create an artificial larger gap, but that
wouldn't be cricket.

See above for the other awful truth about such a comparison in
totally unmodified stock cars.

You mean that the TT, which in 2006 will have 255HP just as the Golf
gets to 250? Another marketing lie?

Nobody knows what the TT will have until it's actually launched.

Oh, so you can talk about Cayenne diesel models that aren't even going
to be made, but I can't talk about things that are almost a sure
thing?

You can talk all you like, but you're still guessing.

Wouldn't it be choice if that 255HP motor ended up in the A3 as
well? g (it's probably NOT, of course, but it would be funny.
Obviously marque protection extends to INTERNAL MODEL protection as
well).

It will end up in the A3 - it's Audi policy to spread the use of FSI
to every VAG petrol engine above base models in each range. Indeed,
this even applies to the Skoda Octavia right now.

The
new 2-litre Turbo FSI engine has already been chipped to 274 HP in the
A3 and A4 by the aftermarket tuners in Germany, so I guess Audi will
give it whatever the marketing department says it needs to beat the
competition, even without the twin-turbo 'RS' version due in 2007,
which has been mooted at anywhere from 280 to 350 HP. The VR6 version
may be 3.2, more likely 3.6, probably with FSI, but nobody *knows*,
and Audi sure aren't saying for definite.

I have deliberately avoided talking about aftermarket stuff, because
it's irrelevant. The fact that you introduce it shows how desperate
you are to deny reality and to avoid saying the simle words, "I was
wrong about that".

Typical Vile bull**** - I was simply pointing out that VAG can give
that engine pretty much any power output they like up to 250 HP or so,
with no physical modifications whatever.

And, BTW, VW IS competition to Audi. This works to
protect both Audi's and VW's marketing. they are going to maintain as
many differences as they can (even though they don't necessarily have
to make it 100%). It's hard to promote Audi as VW's upscale sporty and
luxury brother if the *only* difference is skin. Spec advantages, even
when minor, help define the niches that VAG has chosen to provide.

Shame that you don't know much about cars. The new Passat is *totally*
different from the new A6, and is based on a stretched Mk V Golf
platform - hence the transverse VR6 engine in the Passat.

Oh, one last thought - all the power figures quoted up to now have
been based on 98 octane fuel. Use regular 87 octane US sludge and
you'll be *well* down.......................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

Certainly, no serious professional would
countenance *any* test protocol which did not include
level-matching and double-blinding as minimal
pre-requisites.

Professional what? Single-blind is often sufficient for
design purposes.

Got a reference for that claim? I've never heard of a
designer who wanted unreliable, substandard results.

Anecdotes. The second part of your comment doesn't follow.

A SBT is just a DBT that is broken.

Technically, PCABX is single-blind.

Stephen

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 13:39:24 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 17:27:34 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:


Note how you even got it wrong about the current production, as VW
have in fact released an interim Mk V R32, with a 250 HP FSI-headed
version on the existing engine block. So, VW don't only make a
comparable version to my Audi A3, it's actually got a slightly
*superior* engine.

Your *old* car, that is. It's not going to be superior to the 06 A3. I
note that you neglect to note that.

I see no suggestion anywhere that the 2006 A3 V6 will have FSI, in any
world market. So once again, this is just Vile bull****.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

Certainly, no serious professional would
countenance *any* test protocol which did not include
level-matching and double-blinding as minimal
pre-requisites.

Professional what? Single-blind is often sufficient for
design purposes.

Got a reference for that claim?

Anecdotes.

Why not upgrade that to "reliable sources"? LOL!

I've never heard of a
designer who wanted unreliable, substandard results.

The second part of your comment doesn't follow.

Sure it does if you put it together with the explanation
that followed it:

A SBT is just a DBT that is broken.

IOW, why would a designer knowingly use a test procedure
that was broken? Would it be that he didn't want the best
possible results?

Technically, PCABX is single-blind.

Wrong. The role of the blind test adminsitrator is filled by
a piece of software.

"Lionel" wrote

I don't see what you are speaking about since I don't need any "help" to
handle what you call my "battles".
I don't know what is your griefs and problems with some participants of
this NG but something sure is that you and me don't play the same game
here.

maybe you don't *need* any help, but you happily banter
with torri****s who is meanwhile posting my wife's phone
number. How do you like that game?

That's why I prefer to stay away far from you, you're to much rancorous
and "plague-stricken" for me, sorry.

Thank you for agreeing that torri****s is the plague.

"Arny Krueger" wrote

Really. Albertz wants people to believe that he stands for truth and
light,

why do you say that? do you have some proof?

...........while simultaneously posting under a name that was contrived to
resemble mine. It's a wonder that Albertz can't see what is so
horrifically wrong with his picture.

if making a parody of your email address is so horrific to
you, I'll change it. You don't think it's funny? Do you
get it? *hot-plop* Get it, Turdy?
ok - I'll change it for you.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

Certainly, no serious professional would
countenance *any* test protocol which did not include
level-matching and double-blinding as minimal
pre-requisites.

Professional what? Single-blind is often sufficient for
design purposes.

Got a reference for that claim?

Anecdotes.

Why not upgrade that to "reliable sources"? LOL!

Some magazines talk to designers regularly. Some discuss this kind of
thing.

I've never heard of a
designer who wanted unreliable, substandard results.

The second part of your comment doesn't follow.

Sure it does if you put it together with the explanation
that followed it:

A SBT is just a DBT that is broken.

Assuming facts not in evidence.

IOW, why would a designer knowingly use a test procedure
that was broken? Would it be that he didn't want the best
possible results?

Single blind can be good enough. After all, most gear sounds the same
despite being designed with little or no listening at all.

Technically, PCABX is single-blind.

Wrong. The role of the blind test adminsitrator is filled by
a piece of software.

Who isn't a person.

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 20:58:48 GMT, MINe 109
wrote:

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

Certainly, no serious professional would
countenance *any* test protocol which did not include
level-matching and double-blinding as minimal
pre-requisites.

Professional what? Single-blind is often sufficient for
design purposes.

Got a reference for that claim? I've never heard of a
designer who wanted unreliable, substandard results.

Anecdotes. The second part of your comment doesn't follow.

A SBT is just a DBT that is broken.

Technically, PCABX is single-blind.

Given adequate precautions to avoid obvious cues, IME single-blinding
can be adequate in many cases. However, no *professional* would stake
his reputation on publishing results of SBTs.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 21:09:37 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 13:39:24 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 17:27:34 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:


Note how you even got it wrong about the current production, as VW
have in fact released an interim Mk V R32, with a 250 HP FSI-headed
version on the existing engine block. So, VW don't only make a
comparable version to my Audi A3, it's actually got a slightly
*superior* engine.

Your *old* car, that is. It's not going to be superior to the 06 A3. I
note that you neglect to note that.

I see no suggestion anywhere that the 2006 A3 V6 will have FSI, in any
world market. So once again, this is just Vile bull****.

250HP is 250HP. But if you're enamored with FSI, then just sell the
inferior Audi that you own and get the superior VW. You don't want to
be left behind, do you? It will look good right next to that Cayenne
diesel that you have on order.

BTW, it's good that VW has caught the Golf up with the HP rating of
the A3. I won't be surprised when Audi ups the ante again.

In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 20:58:48 GMT, MINe 109
wrote:

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

Certainly, no serious professional would
countenance *any* test protocol which did not include
level-matching and double-blinding as minimal
pre-requisites.

Professional what? Single-blind is often sufficient for
design purposes.

Got a reference for that claim? I've never heard of a
designer who wanted unreliable, substandard results.

Anecdotes. The second part of your comment doesn't follow.

A SBT is just a DBT that is broken.

Technically, PCABX is single-blind.

Given adequate precautions to avoid obvious cues, IME single-blinding
can be adequate in many cases. However, no *professional* would stake
his reputation on publishing results of SBTs.

Hence my reference to anecdotes.

Stephen

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article
, Stewart
Pinkerton wrote:

Certainly, no serious professional would
countenance *any* test protocol which did not include
level-matching and double-blinding as minimal
pre-requisites.

Professional what? Single-blind is often sufficient
for design purposes.

Got a reference for that claim?

Anecdotes.

Why not upgrade that to "reliable sources"? LOL!

Some magazines talk to designers regularly. Some discuss
this kind of thing.

More anecdotes, with name dropping.

I've never heard of a
designer who wanted unreliable, substandard results.

The second part of your comment doesn't follow.

Sure it does if you put it together with the explanation
that followed it:

A SBT is just a DBT that is broken.

Assuming facts not in evidence.

Assuming knowlege that your typical RAO troll wouldn't
admit, even if they knew it.

IOW, why would a designer knowingly use a test procedure
that was broken? Would it be that he didn't want the
best possible results?

Single blind can be good enough.

For what? Impression visiting firemen?

After all, most gear
sounds the same despite being designed with little or no
listening at all.


Assuming facts not in evidence.


Technically, PCABX is single-blind.

Wrong. The role of the blind test adminsitrator is
filled by a piece of software.

Who isn't a person.

Right, which makes him far more predictable, and/or
unpredictable as required.

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 20:58:48 GMT, MINe 109
wrote:

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article
, Stewart
Pinkerton wrote:

Certainly, no serious professional would
countenance *any* test protocol which did not include
level-matching and double-blinding as minimal
pre-requisites.

Professional what? Single-blind is often sufficient
for design purposes.

Got a reference for that claim? I've never heard of a
designer who wanted unreliable, substandard results.

Anecdotes. The second part of your comment doesn't
follow.

A SBT is just a DBT that is broken.

Technically, PCABX is single-blind.

Given adequate precautions to avoid obvious cues, IME
single-blinding can be adequate in many cases. However,
no *professional* would stake his reputation on
publishing results of SBTs.

Hence my reference to anecdotes.

But you said some of them would be published.

Bzzzzzzzzzzt!

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 20:58:48 GMT, MINe 109
wrote:

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article
, Stewart
Pinkerton wrote:

Certainly, no serious professional would
countenance *any* test protocol which did not include
level-matching and double-blinding as minimal
pre-requisites.

Professional what? Single-blind is often sufficient
for design purposes.

Got a reference for that claim? I've never heard of a
designer who wanted unreliable, substandard results.

Anecdotes. The second part of your comment doesn't
follow.

A SBT is just a DBT that is broken.

Technically, PCABX is single-blind.

Given adequate precautions to avoid obvious cues, IME
single-blinding can be adequate in many cases. However,
no *professional* would stake his reputation on
publishing results of SBTs.

Hence my reference to anecdotes.

But you said some of them would be published.

Bzzzzzzzzzzt!

I believe Stewart meant publishing a scientific paper in a peer-reviewed
journal, the distinction made with his reference to "professional"
"reputation" and "results."

There's no downside to anecdotes about properly done single-blind tests
published in non-professional media.

Stephen

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article
, Stewart
Pinkerton wrote:

Certainly, no serious professional would
countenance *any* test protocol which did not include
level-matching and double-blinding as minimal
pre-requisites.

Professional what? Single-blind is often sufficient
for design purposes.

Got a reference for that claim?

Anecdotes.

Why not upgrade that to "reliable sources"? LOL!

Some magazines talk to designers regularly. Some discuss
this kind of thing.

More anecdotes, with name dropping.

Yes, and, no.

I've never heard of a
designer who wanted unreliable, substandard results.

The second part of your comment doesn't follow.

Sure it does if you put it together with the explanation
that followed it:

A SBT is just a DBT that is broken.

Assuming facts not in evidence.

Assuming knowlege that your typical RAO troll wouldn't
admit, even if they knew it.

SBTs can be properly designed. DBTs can be improperly designed.

IOW, why would a designer knowingly use a test procedure
that was broken? Would it be that he didn't want the
best possible results?

Single blind can be good enough.

For what? Impression visiting firemen?

Huh?

After all, most gear
sounds the same despite being designed with little or no
listening at all.


Assuming facts not in evidence.

Doesn't most gear sound the same?

Technically, PCABX is single-blind.

Wrong. The role of the blind test adminsitrator is
filled by a piece of software.

Who isn't a person.

Right, which makes him far more predictable, and/or
unpredictable as required.

But he's not blind. This would be a case in which a technically
single-blind procedure might still be useful.

Stephen

In article ,
says...



Speaking of Howard, how would he have survived Katrina?

Assuming it had hit Florida at catagory 4:

MRE's and soft drinks too..
Brought in by the military crew.
An' as the waters ebb
Comes a gift from Jeb
A big hot bowl of stew. :-)

Hammingaway Inc.

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 20:58:48 GMT, MINe 109
wrote:

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article
,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

Certainly, no serious professional would
countenance *any* test protocol which did not
include level-matching and double-blinding as
minimal pre-requisites.

Professional what? Single-blind is often sufficient
for design purposes.

Got a reference for that claim? I've never heard of a
designer who wanted unreliable, substandard results.

Anecdotes. The second part of your comment doesn't
follow.

A SBT is just a DBT that is broken.

Technically, PCABX is single-blind.

Given adequate precautions to avoid obvious cues, IME
single-blinding can be adequate in many cases. However,
no *professional* would stake his reputation on
publishing results of SBTs.

Hence my reference to anecdotes.

But you said some of them would be published.

Bzzzzzzzzzzt!

I believe Stewart meant publishing a scientific paper in
a peer-reviewed journal, the distinction made with his
reference to "professional" "reputation" and "results."

Hair-splitting in service of Atkinson noted.

There's no downside to anecdotes about properly done
single-blind tests published in non-professional media.

Spin on, dude.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

Bzzzzzzzzzzt!

I believe Stewart meant publishing a scientific paper in
a peer-reviewed journal, the distinction made with his
reference to "professional" "reputation" and "results."

Hair-splitting in service of Atkinson noted.

No, but thanks for trying to cast the net wider.

There's no downside to anecdotes about properly done
single-blind tests published in non-professional media.

Spin on, dude.

What was that about hair-splitting?

Stephen

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 02:12:21 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 21:09:37 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 13:39:24 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 17:27:34 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:


Note how you even got it wrong about the current production, as VW
have in fact released an interim Mk V R32, with a 250 HP FSI-headed
version on the existing engine block. So, VW don't only make a
comparable version to my Audi A3, it's actually got a slightly
*superior* engine.

Your *old* car, that is. It's not going to be superior to the 06 A3. I
note that you neglect to note that.

I see no suggestion anywhere that the 2006 A3 V6 will have FSI, in any
world market. So once again, this is just Vile bull****.

250HP is 250HP.

Like I said, just more Vile bull****.

But if you're enamored with FSI, then just sell the
inferior Audi that you own and get the superior VW. You don't want to
be left behind, do you? It will look good right next to that Cayenne
diesel that you have on order.

I was thinking more of the RS4.................

BTW, it's good that VW has caught the Golf up with the HP rating of
the A3. I won't be surprised when Audi ups the ante again.

Of course not - that's what the 300 HP 3.6 FSI is for!

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

MINe 109 said to the Krooborg:

What was that about hair-splitting?

aBxism bible say: "Splitting one hair prevent loss of many valuable turds."

On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 18:38:38 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 02:12:21 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 21:09:37 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 13:39:24 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 17:27:34 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:


Note how you even got it wrong about the current production, as VW
have in fact released an interim Mk V R32, with a 250 HP FSI-headed
version on the existing engine block. So, VW don't only make a
comparable version to my Audi A3, it's actually got a slightly
*superior* engine.

Your *old* car, that is. It's not going to be superior to the 06 A3. I
note that you neglect to note that.

I see no suggestion anywhere that the 2006 A3 V6 will have FSI, in any
world market. So once again, this is just Vile bull****.

250HP is 250HP.

Like I said, just more Vile bull****.

And shame that gas mileage is going to be slightly worse with the
Golf. Probably due to aerodynamics, because the Audi is 300 kgs
heavier, probably due to the heavier Audi badges.

But if you're enamored with FSI, then just sell the
inferior Audi that you own and get the superior VW. You don't want to
be left behind, do you? It will look good right next to that Cayenne
diesel that you have on order.

I was thinking more of the RS4.................

What, no FSI? Are you nuts? That's apparently the thing that makes an
engine "advanced" these days. and let's remember that this can't be a
"cutting-edge Pinkerton-Peter Principle motor", since it's not
normally aspirated, right?

You should just get the Saleen S7 and be done with it. You'll have
bragging rights for a while...

BTW, it's good that VW has caught the Golf up with the HP rating of
the A3. I won't be surprised when Audi ups the ante again.

Of course not - that's what the 300 HP 3.6 FSI is for!

Who cares? We were talking "same engine comparisons", remember? But
thanks for pointing out the fact that VW usually has to take a back
seat, which isn't a bad thing, because that's just part of the niche
marketing that has made VAG so successful, marketing that you continue
to deny the existence of. (dangling preposition brought to you by the
Department of Hanging Prepositions).

BTW, the main thing that we can take away from this thread is that the
engineering world has now re-defined the word "identical", at least
according to Lord Bottom-Of-The-Bottle, Esq.

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 14:28:20 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 18:38:38 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

I was thinking more of the RS4.................

What, no FSI? Are you nuts? That's apparently the thing that makes an
engine "advanced" these days. and let's remember that this can't be a
"cutting-edge Pinkerton-Peter Principle motor", since it's not
normally aspirated, right?

You really are an ignorant asshole, aren't you Vile? The 2005 RS4 is
naturally aspirated, has FSI, and generates 420 HP from 4163cc, which
exceeds 100 per litre.

You should just get the Saleen S7 and be done with it. You'll have
bragging rights for a while...

You *never* get bragging rights for driving a Yank tank. Now, the
Ariel Atom, that's another matter................

BTW, it's good that VW has caught the Golf up with the HP rating of
the A3. I won't be surprised when Audi ups the ante again.

Of course not - that's what the 300 HP 3.6 FSI is for!

Who cares? We were talking "same engine comparisons", remember?

It *is* the same engine, you ignorant ****, it just has bigger holes
in it!

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 05:40:15 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 14:28:20 -0500, dave weil
wrote:

On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 18:38:38 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

I was thinking more of the RS4.................

What, no FSI? Are you nuts? That's apparently the thing that makes an
engine "advanced" these days. and let's remember that this can't be a
"cutting-edge Pinkerton-Peter Principle motor", since it's not
normally aspirated, right?

You really are an ignorant asshole, aren't you Vile? The 2005 RS4 is
naturally aspirated, has FSI, and generates 420 HP from 4163cc, which
exceeds 100 per litre.

Oh, I'm sorry cue sarcasm alert. I just assumed that you were
talking about the NEW model, not a year old car.

You should just get the Saleen S7 and be done with it. You'll have
bragging rights for a while...

You *never* get bragging rights for driving a Yank tank. Now, the
Ariel Atom, that's another matter................

You're joking, of course. Bragging rights in a go-kart. Cool. The
standards of the Brits has fallen quite low.

BTW, it's good that VW has caught the Golf up with the HP rating of
the A3. I won't be surprised when Audi ups the ante again.

Of course not - that's what the 300 HP 3.6 FSI is for!

Who cares? We were talking "same engine comparisons", remember?

It *is* the same engine, you ignorant ****, it just has bigger holes
in it!

Oh, so now boring the engine out keeps it the "same motor", especially
when it comes to specs and performance. Cool. Amazing how flexible you
engineering types have gotten. As we know 3.2 = 3.6 every time.

Now, back to your early-afternoon double Lagavulin.

George Minus Middius lose contact :

MINe 109 said to the Krooborg:


What was that about hair-splitting?


aBxism bible say: "Splitting one hair prevent loss of many valuable turds."


What a coincidence it is also Dave Weil's motto. ;-)

PS : George don't forget that not later than last week, your
Godfather, Sir John "GoldenHears" Atkinson was refering to
one of these ABX tests to confirm that there was an audible
difference between 2 wires.

dave weil a écrit :
On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 05:40:15 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:


On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 14:28:20 -0500, dave weil
wrote:


On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 18:38:38 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton
wrote:

I was thinking more of the RS4.................

What, no FSI? Are you nuts? That's apparently the thing that makes an
engine "advanced" these days. and let's remember that this can't be a
"cutting-edge Pinkerton-Peter Principle motor", since it's not
normally aspirated, right?

You really are an ignorant asshole, aren't you Vile? The 2005 RS4 is
naturally aspirated, has FSI, and generates 420 HP from 4163cc, which
exceeds 100 per litre.


Oh, I'm sorry cue sarcasm alert. I just assumed that you were
talking about the NEW model, not a year old car.


You should just get the Saleen S7 and be done with it. You'll have
bragging rights for a while...

You *never* get bragging rights for driving a Yank tank. Now, the
Ariel Atom, that's another matter................


You're joking, of course. Bragging rights in a go-kart. Cool. The
standards of the Brits has fallen quite low.


BTW, it's good that VW has caught the Golf up with the HP rating of
the A3. I won't be surprised when Audi ups the ante again.

Of course not - that's what the 300 HP 3.6 FSI is for!

Who cares? We were talking "same engine comparisons", remember?

It *is* the same engine, you ignorant ****, it just has bigger holes
in it!


Oh, so now boring the engine out keeps it the "same motor", especially
when it comes to specs and performance. Cool. Amazing how flexible you
engineering types have gotten. As we know 3.2 = 3.6 every time.

You can argue as you want that's the same engine
(architecture). Just the bore of the cylinder is different.
In mechanical construction these is the same engine since
the geometry, the engine block, the crankshaft, the
distribution... remain the same.
In engeneering departments such "bore modifications" to an
engine are formalized by an indice on the original drawing.

How many time have you worked in an engeenering dpt Dave ?

Too bad you don't know enough about mechanic, engines and
cars, we could have interesting discussion.


Now, back to your early-afternoon double Lagavulin.

Now go back to your Budweiser, little player. ;-)

"Lionel" wrote in message



PS : George don't forget that not later than last week,
your Godfather, Sir John "GoldenHears" Atkinson was
refering to one of these ABX tests to confirm that there
was an audible difference between 2 wires.

BTW it looks like George made only 1 post on Atkinson's new
conference board and then mysteriously stopped. Did cooler
heads prevail?

Gibberella tries to re-inflate the Krooborg's flaccid ego.

aBxism bible say: "Splitting one hair prevent loss of many valuable turds."

What a coincidence it is also Dave Weil's motto. ;-)

Sluttie, haven't you learned yet that such exceedingly lame IKYABWIHs only serve
to reinforce the Mickey-like facet of your persona?

PS : George don't forget that not later than last week, your
Godfather, Sir John "GoldenHears" Atkinson was refering to
one of these ABX tests to confirm that there was an audible
difference between 2 wires.

You probably have no idea how dismal your existence appears when Normals
perceive you as identifying with Thing and Mr. ****. Sad, really.

George "Minus" Middius wrote :


Gibberella tries to re-inflate the Krooborg's flaccid ego.


aBxism bible say: "Splitting one hair prevent loss of many valuable turds."


What a coincidence it is also Dave Weil's motto. ;-)


Sluttie, haven't you learned yet that such exceedingly lame IKYABWIHs only serve
to reinforce the Mickey-like facet of your persona?

It's not my fault but it's true.

For example if meeting Dave you say him :
"Oh, oh Dave with wear the same shirt !"
He will argues months saying :
"No your is XS since mine is XXXXXL.

PS : George don't forget that not later than last week, your
Godfather, Sir John "GoldenHears" Atkinson was refering to
one of these ABX tests to confirm that there was an audible
difference between 2 wires.


You probably have no idea how dismal your existence appears when Normals
perceive you as identifying with Thing and Mr. ****. Sad, really.

You have no idea how small and pitiful you are when you're
fleeing the important questions.
You have no idea how ungrateful you are when you mock me
while I am gently trying to make you grow.

Gibberella, what fuel do you use? If you're petroleum-dependent like the rest of
the industrialized world, you should consider cutting back -- both on
consumption and this kind of emission.

aBxism bible say: "Splitting one hair prevent loss of many valuable turds."

What a coincidence it is also Dave Weil's motto. ;-)

Sluttie, haven't you learned yet that such exceedingly lame IKYABWIHs only
serve to reinforce the Mickey-like facet of your persona?

It's not my fault but it's true.

Speaking for myself, I would hate to be chained to such a parochial viewpoint.
Not only are you completely enamored of the ****tiest of the ****ty, but you've
also become so estranged from reality that you can't distinguish human-style
logic from Krooglish and the Beast's "debating trade" crapola.

Moreover, your Mickeyness is intensified when you demonstrate with such stark
clarity that you don't understand the difference between a bout of kneejerk
namecalling and a more reasoned analysis of an exchange. Mickey, Mickey, Mickey.

For example if meeting Dave you say him :
"Oh, oh Dave with wear the same shirt !"

sneer

The problem with this scenario is that I don't indulge in gibberish, so I would
never utter a meaningless collection of words like that.

You lose.

Again.(tm)

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 14:36:32 +0200, Lionel
wrote:

Too bad you don't know enough about mechanic, engines and
cars, we could have interesting discussion.

Sorry, but you are HARDLY interested with an "interesting discussion"
with me.

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 16:33:31 +0200, Lionel
wrote:

Sluttie, haven't you learned yet that such exceedingly lame IKYABWIHs only serve
to reinforce the Mickey-like facet of your persona?

It's not my fault but it's true.

Kudos. Finally, some self-awareness.

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On 4 Sep 2005 18:53:40 -0700, wrote:


Paul Packer says: (Sept4)
"I'm saying is that for an audio NG there's something missing here",

Yes, indeed. I find it interesting that of all controversies
it is the questioning of evidence for ABX that sends not a few into
spluttering, red-eyed, inarticulate, foaming-at-the-mouth,rage, where
nothing but obscenities will do.* Their fury intimidates new audio
amateurs from asking questions or discussing improvement

Not a few of the most vocal have little acquaintance with
(and interest in) the sound of original instruments of the orchestra.
For those whose "music' consists of what they can hear on their
home or car" hi-fi system" the little ABX box with a switch is a
godsend. Its limitations confirm "scientifically" that there is
nothing more to hear out there then they manage to; wire is wire and
amps are amps - and those who hear more are snobs or self-deluded, or
swindlers trying to put one over the honest folks. ABX allows them to
transform their resentment and suspicion of inferiority into a triumph.
There is something very personal about the fervour with which pursue
those who want to get closer to the original instruments' sound.
After all no one forces them to listen to chamber music.

Good point about being familiar with the sound of live instruments.
One wonders how many on Usenet flutter on about audio without ever
familiarising themselves with live sound.

Most are familiar AFAICT. Many have some competence as musicians.

Not of course that most recordings resemble live sound in any way.

The simplistic minds, bereft of any original thought, have
limited ability to profit from education. They believe that the
textbooks they managed to memorise contain the ultimate truth. They now
own Science with a capital S. But if one learns one thing in medicine
it is that science is a living process. Yesterday's "100%
incurable" disease one day yields to penicillin and yesterday's
certainties go into the textbooks of history of medicine.
Like in every generalization there are exceptions. Two that occur
to me are first Arny Krueger , the inventor of ABX. He would be
superhuman if he did not have emotional capital invested in his brain
child.

Indeed. Arnie may deny it but if so he'd have to deny being human.
Another point: what was Arnie's philosophy when he first came up with
ABX? Was it a totally open-minded project, or was he trying to confirm
a pre-existing idea?

The original idea was to prove that things did sound different as most
seemed to believe, that the results turned out to be otherwise, is evidence
of being able to deal with the truth.
The other are the musicians. Very few are interested in high-end.
It is a shame from the consumer point of view- because if they were
they would not allow some of the monstrosities perpetrated in their
name by eg. DG and Melodiya. The explanation may be that they listen
for and hear something completely different from the audience out in
their seats. Perhaps they *expect* the reproduction to be a caricature
and a little better or a little worse makes no difference to them.
Ludovic Mirabel

One has to question what happens between performance and recording.
Why is there such a variation in recordings? Is it due purely to the
sound of the hall, the variations in mics etc, or are engineers
interfering too much in the process? It's interesting that some of the
most admired recording are the most simply miked, like the old Mercury
productions.

P.S. I really like your name. :-)

dave weil a écrit :
On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 14:36:32 +0200, Lionel
wrote:


Too bad you don't know enough about mechanic, engines and
cars, we could have interesting discussion.


Sorry, but you are HARDLY interested with an "interesting discussion"
with me.

Just because I know that you are totally unable to have any
""interesting discussion" with anybody. ;-)

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 08:32:01 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message


Indeed. Arnie may deny it but if so he'd have to deny
being human. Another point: what was Arnie's philosophy
when he first came up with ABX? Was it a totally
open-minded project, or was he trying to confirm a
pre-existing idea?

I was trying to confirm the pre-existing idea that
amplifiers sounded different.

Did it ever occur to you that you may not have come up with the best
method? That indeed there ARE differences, but what you came up with
simply didn't serve to demonstrate them?

Then where is the better method and why do so many who do audio research,
rely on ABX or some variant?

dave weil a écrit :
On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 16:33:31 +0200, Lionel
wrote:


Sluttie, haven't you learned yet that such exceedingly lame IKYABWIHs only serve
to reinforce the Mickey-like facet of your persona?

It's not my fault but it's true.


Kudos. Finally, some self-awareness.

"Dave, haven't you learned yet that such exceedingly lame
IKYABWIHs only serve to reinforce the Mickey-like facet of
your persona?"

/George Minus Middius/

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 18:08:21 +0200, Lionel
wrote:

dave weil a écrit :
On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 14:36:32 +0200, Lionel
wrote:


Too bad you don't know enough about mechanic, engines and
cars, we could have interesting discussion.


Sorry, but you are HARDLY interested with an "interesting discussion"
with me.

Just because I know that you are totally unable to have any
""interesting discussion" with anybody. ;-)

So, thanks for admitting to the lie. And I think that there are a few
people who would disagree with your perception.

George Middius a écrit :
Gibberella, what fuel do you use? If you're petroleum-dependent like the rest of
the industrialized world, you should consider cutting back -- both on
consumption and this kind of emission.


aBxism bible say: "Splitting one hair prevent loss of many valuable turds."


What a coincidence it is also Dave Weil's motto. ;-)


Sluttie, haven't you learned yet that such exceedingly lame IKYABWIHs only
serve to reinforce the Mickey-like facet of your persona?


It's not my fault but it's true.


Speaking for myself,


This is the only thing you love.


For example if meeting Dave you say him :
"Oh, oh Dave with wear the same shirt !"


sneer

The problem with this scenario is that I don't indulge in gibberish, so I would
never utter a meaningless collection of words like that.

That's your problem, George, not mine.

You lose.

Again.(tm)


May I understand that you are really happy in you XS shirts
? :-D

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 18:09:20 +0200, Lionel
wrote:

dave weil a écrit :
On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 16:33:31 +0200, Lionel
wrote:


Sluttie, haven't you learned yet that such exceedingly lame IKYABWIHs only serve
to reinforce the Mickey-like facet of your persona?

It's not my fault but it's true.


Kudos. Finally, some self-awareness.

"Dave, haven't you learned yet that such exceedingly lame
IKYABWIHs only serve to reinforce the Mickey-like facet of
your persona?"

Apparently, this is the only way that you can avoid writing garbled
English.

dave weil a écrit :


...And I think that there are a few people who would disagree with your perception.

I hope it is true in your private life but not on RAO.
Just remember this boring speaker review that *NOBODY*
except me has read (thanks to caffeine perfusion) ?
Remember that Dave, on RAO you are agressive, nasty and boring.

BTW you should continue to learn a little bit about cars and
engines, you are particulary ignorant on the subject and
despite intensive night and days Google searchs you have
once again missed the most important.
Good luck.

dave "Little Man" weil a écrit :

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 18:09:20 +0200, Lionel
wrote:


dave weil a écrit :

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 16:33:31 +0200, Lionel
wrote:



Sluttie, haven't you learned yet that such exceedingly lame IKYABWIHs only serve
to reinforce the Mickey-like facet of your persona?

It's not my fault but it's true.


Kudos. Finally, some self-awareness.

"Dave, haven't you learned yet that such exceedingly lame
IKYABWIHs only serve to reinforce the Mickey-like facet of
your persona?"


Apparently, this is the only way that you can avoid writing garbled
English.

Don't be so vexed, Little Man, this also provess that I
understand it. ;-)

dave weil said:

Sluttie, haven't you learned yet that such exceedingly lame IKYABWIHs only serve
to reinforce the Mickey-like facet of your persona?

It's not my fault but it's true.

Kudos. Finally, some self-awareness.

Good one. I missed it. G